The legal case for non-compliance was already made before. That's why the UN tightened up 687 with 1441.

Secretary Powell will now make the case for material breach of 1441 by showing continued non-compliance. It will be a relatively easy case to prove with very little evidence necessary as Iraq still hasn't complied with 1441's measures(ie. submitted an incomplete/inaccurate WMD document and continued failure to cooperate with UN Inspectors).

I'm also sure that Secretary Powell will have Audio and pictures of Iraqi non-compliance (ie. increased movement of material at projected sites before Inspector arrival and/or incriminating audio interceptions of duplicity).

From a legal standpoint Iraq's position is weak. The Security council will have to make two very hards decisions Wednesday:

1) Is Iraq in material Breach of resolution 1441?

2) If they decide yes, is another resolution needed to authorize force to gain compliance by Iraq?

I disagree that the case for non-compliance was made before. If it had, Iraq would be a sheet of glass now instead of a country.

I also disagree with your redux that there is "very little evidence necessary" to prove non-compliance. So far there is NO evidence that proves that Iraq somehow conspired to release an inaccurate list and hide weapons. The burden of proof is on your side, and it has not been met... or even approached.

Any audio or video evidence is suspect because there is no way of proving its authenticity. Further, the entire world has been asking for this proof for months. Why does it suddenly appear out of nowhere? The obvious reason is that Dubya knows he will lose his war without something.

I believe that Iraq's legal standpoint is very strong. There is no proof to implicate them and in fact there is plenty of evidence from previous inspections that they have been in compliance

The question of material breach is moot. The UK and US says yes, everyone else in the world says no.

And yes, these "edicts" are the UN's, not the US'. Do you still believe that they hate us for our freedom?

All I have presented to you is the known legal aspects of the pending case. I'm not trying to win you over nor do I care whether anyone else's view was just swayed by either your's or my rhetoric.

Try very hard to remove your political filters and study the case from a legal perspective and you will arrive at the same conclusion. Iraq's legal position is weak and will probably be made non-exsistent tomorrow with Secretary Powell's dissertation.

Just for you though, I will put in some subjective rhetoric;

The letter of the law can sometimes cause great evil, yet, good civilizations will readily cease to exist where no law endures.

Even in the US, where Bush's support is the strongest, over 60% believe that UN support (a new resolution) is necessary for Bush to attack Iraq. Nearly 70% say he must produce some evidence to prove his case; all the pre-leaks of the anonymous administration say that he DOESN'T have that kind of evidence.

I realize that you are trying to present your understanding of the legal case as you understand it. I just don't think you understand it. Almost NO ONE on the planet believes that the last Security Coucil resolution has a "hidden trigger" in it that allows the US to attack Iraq. Yet you do.

I still wait to be convinced. I doubt that there will be an outright lie, just, perhaps, some imaginative translations of conversatons and interesting interpretations of photographs. If it is more than this, well great. But why wait so long?

The concerns I have are

1) If the weapons are there and US intel knows where they are - why has this info not been passed on to the UN inspectors. If it exists and has not been passed on, US Govt has been effectively undermining the UN inspectors.

2) If the weapons are there, given time the UN inspectors (perhaps guided by the US intel services) should be able to find them. Why then is the US not willing to give these inspectors time - unless the weapons will not be found because they are not there?

3) Considering the above, and that the US has stated that Iraq is not yet a threat - why will they not wait for the few months requested by the UN?

As I have said elsewhere, the US attitude over this whole issue has caused a lot more resentment in the global community. This, coupled to an attack on Iraq which is not clearly justified, will play right into the hands of the Militant Islamic terrorist cells when the recruit for the next attack.

I think the political aspects of this FAR, FAR, outweigh any military considerations. At least in the no-minds of the Dubya Conflagration and his Secret of Offense.

Rummy is not a pragmatic military man; he is an idealogue steeped in Cold War paranoia. It's Them and US. As it happens, the THEM is turning out to be the entire rest of the world. Nixon lives.

The ONLY concern Rumfish has with the troops and equipment is how to make losses politically palatable. He has even stated that draftees have made no sustained (or whatever the adjective was) contribitution to the US.

Kind of hard to belive any evidance that can be presented. After all the stuff bush has pulled and his father pulled and are still pulling, I need to get 2 more bells cause they been jacking me off for so long I am pretty sore and spent.

Also all this pre-emptive attacks no mater what and also including the use of nukes really leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is like the wild wild west except a few others also have guns just a big and the bluff's can go a little too far and wipe out everyone. Talk about your security, Hey how about mine?

Vigorous... I think the political aspects of this FAR, FAR, outweigh any military considerations. At least in the no-minds of the Dubya Conflagration and his Secret of Offense.

...The ONLY concern Rumfish has with the troops and equipment is how to make losses politically palatable. He has even stated that draftees have made no sustained (or whatever the adjective was) contribitution to the US.

Not a soldier's soldier, that's for damn sure.

* the military considerations are quite important. Weather, as always, will play a part. Some factors in our war efforts are clouded by certain kinds of weather.* when reinstatement of the draft in America was first suggested, my husband (retired US Army) thought it was the worst idea yet. The fact is, he told me, a draftee is in the service for 2 years; at the time, women weren't drafted, so the male draftee trained for a period of time but gained no real experience. Into the cauldron of Vietnam he was sent, serving alongside others who'd been in the Army for years and not only had experience but plenty of training. Draftees, more often than not, put the others at peril. * I'd say Rumsfeld is very much a soldier's soldier.

While we're on the topic, there's something I'd like to mention. As one may have surmised, I have more of a pro-American military slant on things than most of those who post on this board. I didn't serve in Vietnam, but I've known others who have, one of whom was killed when his tank rolled over a land mine.

Even those in the Air Force, with whom I worked for some years, didn't have the same perspective as those in the Army. How could they, when they flew over targets? When a person is in the middle of a battle engineered by one's superiors, one doesn't take the time to decide whether the war is right or wrong, because one's own life is very much in danger.

It seems to me that unless one has been in the midst of war, the "fog and friction" of battle, one honestly does not have the information needed to decide what is right and wrong. I speak of the pitched sort of battles, where everyone is involved in the action.

MyLai was horrid, a moment of shame for our country and the company who performed those acts. I believe Lt Calley has been punished, America was walked over the coals for that incident, and yet it was but a moment in time.

There are other crimes, stemming from WWII, discussed on this board, committed by British and American, as well as German and Russian. They seem to deal with treatment of POWs in a post-war environment.

German POWs held in this country during the war suffered some, but certainly not more than anybody incarcerated would. They were given considerable freedom, probably more than they had as "free citizens" in Hitler's Germany. What took place after the war -- after stories of the misery British and American POWs endured had surfaced, after the camps had been found where Jew, gypsy, homosexual, Bolshevik, and anybody else Hitler could pick on were held -- may deserve condemnation, but then I wasn't there, I hadn't lived through that time.

Firecat, you may "be" from everywhere, but what are your beliefs? You decry anything American, as do many who post on this board, and yet I haven't seen anything positive posted by you. You offer no solutions, only criticisms. I wonder where your sincerity lies?

Forward Looking, my husband and I are a fortunate couple. My husband is given military retirement pay which is pegged to nothing but a table of amounts. Yes, he is getting what he richly deserves. I think you're referring to the many who relied on IRA, etc., funding for their retirements.

And when I mentioned that Firecat decries things American, that bears no similarity to "zionists" and "anti-Semites." A statement of truth is not an accusation. (I've come to the conclusion that a large portion of this board operates under this assumption)

"Anti-Semitism" is defined as people hating Jewish people just because they are Jewish. Such behavior is virtually non-existent. The issue is hate not of what people are but of what people DO. What is on the upsurge is American outrage at Israel's policies regarding Palestine, Israel's constant land grabs, Israel's deceptions against the US, Israel's spying against the US, USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, tricking us into bombing Libya, and Israel's constant and escalating demand for more of our money (now totaling four times the entire cost of the Apollo Moon Program).. I know you want to THINK that's "anti-Semitism", but it isn't.

Hate gets a bad rap, but the truth is that not all hate is bad, and some hates are necessary. I hate child molesters. I hate drug dealers. I hate corrupt politicians. I hate war and those who seek to profit from them. I hate liars. That's not a bad hate. It's useful. It powers opposition to those actions we all agree are damaging to society.

I am not the flamming pussy but here is my answer to anti-americanism.

There are millions of Vietnamese and Iraqi children born today that are deformed. To americans vietnam is not even a memory and iraq not much at the top of the list except to bomb them even more.

These people are still living through america's actions, not had to live through. As in past tense like the philliphinos, So americans must really hate the world and those humans for them to do these things to others all over.

They have done it many times before and seems hell bent on to keep doing it on an even grander scale now.

Americans are anti-human. Americans hate what others stand for and cant stand seeing them being happy and lead a life.

To Avov: you are 100% correct. My friends, Vietnam veterans who live with the memory of friends dying and dead, who live with the memory of incredible battles -- not a one of them would wish war again. In times of crisis, in times when self-protection is necessary because we are threatened, however, the spectre of war is very real and one must not turn away from one's duty.